Evaluation of the Contradiction In the Case Law Regarding the Application of the Precautinart Attachment to the Legal Representatives And Shareholders of Limited Liability Companies In The Context of The Principle of Legal Security: Criticism of The Decision Of The Council Of State Unification of Jurisprudence
The Unification Board of the Council of State rejected the application for unification of case law regarding the conflict of jurisprudence between the chambers of the Council of State on whether security measures should be applied to the legal representatives and partners of limited liability compan...
Saved in:
| Main Author: | |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Istanbul University Press
2024-12-01
|
| Series: | İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/4C6CF3493062491D8E25E53F76895681 |
| Tags: |
Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
|
| _version_ | 1850034957932560384 |
|---|---|
| author | Sinan Avcı |
| author_facet | Sinan Avcı |
| author_sort | Sinan Avcı |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | The Unification Board of the Council of State rejected the application for unification of case law regarding the conflict of jurisprudence between the chambers of the Council of State on whether security measures should be applied to the legal representatives and partners of limited liability companies due to company debts. The Board stated that the conflict did not reach a level that would damage legal stability and that the “necessity” element of the law was not met. The decision is open to criticism in many ways. First, the decisions included in the unification application are selective, and the contradiction that started much earlier constitutes a deep and ongoing contradiction. It is clear that a uniform interpretation should have been reached by now in terms of the application of the norm, considering that the differently interpreted article of the law has been in force for many years. In the current situation, there is a dual situation in which Chambers 3 and 9 of the Council of State will annul the assurance measures applied to legal representatives and shareholders on appeal, while Chambers 4 and 7 will accept the assurance measure subject to the lawsuit as valid. As stated by the Constitutional Court, it is contrary to the principles of legal certainty and foreseeability to have contradictory results based on the possibility that a decision will be upheld if it falls to a certain chamber and will be reversed if it is handled by another chamber. |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj-art-65dd5ce517c0426b9825ae0439c98ea4 |
| institution | DOAJ |
| issn | 2667-6974 |
| language | English |
| publishDate | 2024-12-01 |
| publisher | Istanbul University Press |
| record_format | Article |
| series | İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası |
| spelling | doaj-art-65dd5ce517c0426b9825ae0439c98ea42025-08-20T02:57:39ZengIstanbul University Pressİstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası2667-69742024-12-018241379140710.26650/mecmua.2024.82.4.0010123456Evaluation of the Contradiction In the Case Law Regarding the Application of the Precautinart Attachment to the Legal Representatives And Shareholders of Limited Liability Companies In The Context of The Principle of Legal Security: Criticism of The Decision Of The Council Of State Unification of JurisprudenceSinan Avcı0https://orcid.org/0000-0002-2160-4685Sakarya Üniversitesi, Sakarya, TürkiyeThe Unification Board of the Council of State rejected the application for unification of case law regarding the conflict of jurisprudence between the chambers of the Council of State on whether security measures should be applied to the legal representatives and partners of limited liability companies due to company debts. The Board stated that the conflict did not reach a level that would damage legal stability and that the “necessity” element of the law was not met. The decision is open to criticism in many ways. First, the decisions included in the unification application are selective, and the contradiction that started much earlier constitutes a deep and ongoing contradiction. It is clear that a uniform interpretation should have been reached by now in terms of the application of the norm, considering that the differently interpreted article of the law has been in force for many years. In the current situation, there is a dual situation in which Chambers 3 and 9 of the Council of State will annul the assurance measures applied to legal representatives and shareholders on appeal, while Chambers 4 and 7 will accept the assurance measure subject to the lawsuit as valid. As stated by the Constitutional Court, it is contrary to the principles of legal certainty and foreseeability to have contradictory results based on the possibility that a decision will be upheld if it falls to a certain chamber and will be reversed if it is handled by another chamber.https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/4C6CF3493062491D8E25E53F76895681profound and long-standing conflictlegal represantativelegal predictabilityright of a fair trial |
| spellingShingle | Sinan Avcı Evaluation of the Contradiction In the Case Law Regarding the Application of the Precautinart Attachment to the Legal Representatives And Shareholders of Limited Liability Companies In The Context of The Principle of Legal Security: Criticism of The Decision Of The Council Of State Unification of Jurisprudence İstanbul Hukuk Mecmuası profound and long-standing conflict legal represantative legal predictability right of a fair trial |
| title | Evaluation of the Contradiction In the Case Law Regarding the Application of the Precautinart Attachment to the Legal Representatives And Shareholders of Limited Liability Companies In The Context of The Principle of Legal Security: Criticism of The Decision Of The Council Of State Unification of Jurisprudence |
| title_full | Evaluation of the Contradiction In the Case Law Regarding the Application of the Precautinart Attachment to the Legal Representatives And Shareholders of Limited Liability Companies In The Context of The Principle of Legal Security: Criticism of The Decision Of The Council Of State Unification of Jurisprudence |
| title_fullStr | Evaluation of the Contradiction In the Case Law Regarding the Application of the Precautinart Attachment to the Legal Representatives And Shareholders of Limited Liability Companies In The Context of The Principle of Legal Security: Criticism of The Decision Of The Council Of State Unification of Jurisprudence |
| title_full_unstemmed | Evaluation of the Contradiction In the Case Law Regarding the Application of the Precautinart Attachment to the Legal Representatives And Shareholders of Limited Liability Companies In The Context of The Principle of Legal Security: Criticism of The Decision Of The Council Of State Unification of Jurisprudence |
| title_short | Evaluation of the Contradiction In the Case Law Regarding the Application of the Precautinart Attachment to the Legal Representatives And Shareholders of Limited Liability Companies In The Context of The Principle of Legal Security: Criticism of The Decision Of The Council Of State Unification of Jurisprudence |
| title_sort | evaluation of the contradiction in the case law regarding the application of the precautinart attachment to the legal representatives and shareholders of limited liability companies in the context of the principle of legal security criticism of the decision of the council of state unification of jurisprudence |
| topic | profound and long-standing conflict legal represantative legal predictability right of a fair trial |
| url | https://cdn.istanbul.edu.tr/file/JTA6CLJ8T5/4C6CF3493062491D8E25E53F76895681 |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT sinanavcı evaluationofthecontradictioninthecaselawregardingtheapplicationoftheprecautinartattachmenttothelegalrepresentativesandshareholdersoflimitedliabilitycompaniesinthecontextoftheprincipleoflegalsecuritycriticismofthedecisionofthecouncilofstateunificationofjur |